totm dec 2019 Russian Launch and Mission Thread

[DDE]

Nobody:

Absolutely nobody:

[culprit behind paywall]: 

 

[kerbiloid]

Based on the picture, Chelomei and Glushko are watching them.

A hybrid of UR-700M and RLA Vulcan?

[tater]

Found this Nick Stevens render (he does awesome work):

[SpaceFace545]

So could someone please explain to me why Russian rockets just look wierd. All other rockets look rockety but Russian rockets are just, um ugly.

[tater]

 

2 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

So could someone please explain to me why Russian rockets just look wierd. All other rockets look rockety but Russian rockets are just, um ugly.

I kinda like 'em, course my favorite WW2 aircraft is not a Spitfire, it's an F4F, so maybe I have an odd aesthetic that leans into the fucntional.

What's the part you like least?

(I'd add that they look kinda... kerbal)

[SpaceFace545]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

I kinda like 'em, course my favorite WW2 aircraft is not a Spitfire, it's an F4F, so maybe I have an odd aesthetic that leans into the fucntional.

What's the part you like least?

(I'd add that they look kinda... kerbal)

I love them too, ugly but cool. They just don't look like any other rockets so I was wondering if their was a clear choice in the design.

[kerbiloid]

37 minutes ago, tater said:

Found this Nick Stevens render (he does awesome work):

This top-5 of dwarves doesn't include the really big one.

http://www.astronautix.com/u/ur-700m.html

 

Launch mass 16 000 t, payload ~750 t (500..1000), central core 12.5 m in dianeter, lateral boosters 9 m, small dots - two-chamber engines "RLA-600".
The shrunk version of this engine is used in Energy.

22 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

So could someone please explain to me why Russian rockets just look wierd. All other rockets look rockety but Russian rockets are just, um ugly.

Which one?

They are rather different.

Spoiler

A quick test: does a head of garlic seem ugly to you?

 

21 minutes ago, tater said:

(I'd add that they look kinda... kerbal)

They use struts. Many struts.
And boosters. Many boosters.
So, they are just proper.

Edited May 14, 2021 by kerbiloid

[Codraroll]

33 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I love them too, ugly but cool. They just don't look like any other rockets so I was wondering if their was a clear choice in the design.

If I were to hazard a guess, the designs could be influenced by the need to transport rocket parts long distances by rail between their factories and the launch pads. That's a requirement that tends to result in lots of smaller-diameter strap-on boosters compared to the large-diameter designs favoured in the US. 

The Soviets never quite figured out how to build as large engine bells as they did in the West either (or if they did, they didn't bother too much with them), so their designs use a forest of small engine bells (several of which may be connected to the same engine) instead of the singular large ones like the F1s on the Saturn V.

[kerbiloid]

38 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

If I were to hazard a guess, the designs could be influenced by the need to transport rocket parts long distances by rail between their factories and the launch pads.

Proton is.
A former ICBM, 4.1 m and 1.6 m.

Soyuz isn't.
It's a combination of five post-V-2 rockets, enlarged up to 2.4 m , 
Although it was nee ICBM, too, it anyway required a whole factory near the launchpad, so wasn't limited by the railroad.

UR-700 is, too.
It should be manufactured out of the Proton lego, so its parts matched the railroad standards just from birth.
Also that's why it's combined from many blocks.

Vulkan isn't.
Its diameters are 9 and 6 m, beyond the railroad limit.
But they match the size of the packs of the engine nozzles taken in required amounts.
(Known as "RLA-600" in astronautix, diameter ~2 m, twin, 2 x 325 tf of thrust each. So, 2 engines, 4 nozzles, 6 m in total. Same idea for the central core gave 9 m.)

N-1 has a very.... designer's design. Its cones contain two spherical tanks, and their diameter match the required amount of the engine nozzles.

Edited May 14, 2021 by kerbiloid

[tater]

(dunno how accurate that image is, but it's a thing)

 

One other factor in Russian rockets "look" is often the hot fire stage sep, and hence the gridded interstage to allow the exhaust to vent.

[Kerwood Floyd]

1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:

So could someone please explain to me why Russian rockets just look wierd. All other rockets look rockety but Russian rockets are just, um ugly.

The thing about the N-1 that jars for me is how the stages aren't mostly cylindrical, like I'm used to.

[tater]

27 minutes ago, Kerwood Floyd said:

The thing about the N-1 that jars for me is how the stages aren't mostly cylindrical, like I'm used to.

 

[sevenperforce]

3 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

So could someone please explain to me why Russian rockets just look wierd. All other rockets look rockety but Russian rockets are just, um ugly.

I really like the way the Soyuz looks with people on it.

Another reason they stuck with the R7 design was that they needed a way to keep the R7 from collapsing on the pad while it was being fueled. The V-2 could stand under its own weight well enough but trying to cluster them to support their own weight and also not knock each other over was too challenging (especially because they were horizontally integrated). The solution was to "hang" the core stage from the boosters. They still horizontally integrate, so they still do this. It's just easier.

The Space Shuttle was vertically integrated. Energia was horizontally integrated but they positioned the four Zenit boosters such that pairs could be bolted together at the top and bottom and thus have a much more stable stack.

The three boosters for Falcon Heavy are sturdy enough to stand on their own launch clamps but the core had to be really strengthened to be able to do that AND support the loads from the side boosters.

[CatastrophicFailure]

So why did they build the N1 like that, with the spherical-tanks-within-hulls? On the surface it seems like that would be a much heavier way to build it, all that mass not contributing to holding fuel in the tanks & such...

[SpaceFace545]

14 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

So why did they build the N1 like that, with the spherical-tanks-within-hulls? On the surface it seems like that would be a much heavier way to build it, all that mass not contributing to holding fuel in the tanks & such...

Well the tanks are spherical so they can’t also double as the hull like most rockets do and the hull also provides aerodynamics and structural integrity.

[sevenperforce]

43 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

So why did they build the N1 like that, with the spherical-tanks-within-hulls? On the surface it seems like that would be a much heavier way to build it, all that mass not contributing to holding fuel in the tanks & such...

It's much easier to build strong spherical pressure vessels than it is to build strong cylindrical pressure vessels. Rather than having to design a tank which will both hold internal pressure and withstand compressive longitudinal load, you split the jobs up. The N1's spherical tanks were lighter for the amount of propellant they held than the Saturn V's cylindrical tanks, and the N1's outer load-bearing frame was lighter for the load it carried than the Saturn V's overall structure.

Spoiler

You can see that the tanks are flat where they hold propellant and they are corrugated to add strength and rigidity where the interstages are.

But of course having one structure do both jobs is much more lightweight. In that sense, the N1 was more of a brute force solution, while the Saturn V took a lot more...doing.

[tater]

48 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Well the tanks are spherical so they can’t also double as the hull like most rockets do and the hull also provides aerodynamics and structural integrity.

What rockets are double hull?

(I expect a long list, since "most")

(PS—I won't wait for the extremely short list)

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

Another reason they stuck with the R7 design was that they needed a way to keep the R7 from collapsing on the pad while it was being fueled. The V-2 could stand under its own weight well enough but trying to cluster them to support their own weight and also not knock each other over was too challenging (especially because they were horizontally integrated). The solution was to "hang" the core stage from the boosters.

The whole R-7 is hanged by the central core neck (#5). The boosters are hanging from it.

Spoiler

 

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

So why did they build the N1 like that, with the spherical-tanks-within-hulls?

Is not absolutely clear, but based on the documents, they were designing a rocket with several tens of engines (yes, Starship, I'm looking at you), so it required a 11..12 m wide bottom.

Cylindric tanks would be almost as wide as high, so they decided to make the stage conical, and two spheres fit it.

Also the rocket was going to be designed in cryogenic and hypergolic variants, so the spherical tanks would make easier their unification.

The fuel tank separated from the hull splitted one complex problem in two easier ones. The hull holds the total rocket and thrust, then tanks hold the fluids.
And such separation made anti-vibration countermeasures easier.

So, they made a cone with two spheres inside and several tens of engines beneath-around.

This is less effective, but easier to compute.

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

The whole R-7 is hanged by the central core neck (#5). The boosters are hanging from it.

That's not my understanding.

From Wikipedia:

"The entire rocket is suspended in the launch system by the load-bearing mechanisms on the strap-on boosters where they are attached to the central core. The latter rests on the nose sections of the strap-on boosters. This scheme resembles flight conditions when the strap-on boosters push the central core forward. The concept of suspending the rocket was one of the novelties introduced with the R-7/Soyuz. Since the launch pad has been eliminated, the bottom portion of the rocket is lowered."

I believe the tulip arms connect to the boosters, not to the core.

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

I believe the tulip arms connect to the boosters, not to the core.

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-750.html

Same picture, but large (doesn't allow to embed),

"5 - силовой (опорный) шпангоут =structural (support) frame/ring"

It's visible on your photo.

Spoiler

https://habr.com/ru/post/220977/

Quote

Во-первых, это единственный комплекс, в котором ракета не стоит на столе, а подвешена за середину. 

"Firstly, it's the only launch complex, where the rocket doesn't stand on the pad, but is hanged by the middle."

***

The boosters are connected to the core with ball'ed hooks in the core holes on top and pyro-fastened struts at the bottom.

Edited May 14, 2021 by kerbiloid

[sevenperforce]

20 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-750.html

Same picture, but large (doesn't allow to embed),

"5 - силовой (опорный) шпангоут =structural (support) frame/ring"

It's visible on your photo.

  Hide contents

https://habr.com/ru/post/220977/

"Firstly, it's the only launch complex, where the rocket doesn't stand on the pad, but hanged by the middle."

Yes, I agree that the ring formed by the four arms is what holds up the whole affair.

I'm saying that the load-bearing attachment at the tip of each ring appears to attach to the tip of each booster and not to the core itself. 

I could be wrong, of course, but that's my understanding of it. 

[kerbiloid]

Got you.
Yes, the levers (?) themselves are stuck into the tip holes of the boosters, and this structure supports the core structural ring hanged.

(Doesn't allow to embed the underlying pix)

https://kik-sssr.ru/IP_4_Turatam_old_Razdel_1.htm

https://kik-sssr.ru/IP_4_Turatam_old_Razdel_2.htm

https://kik-sssr.ru/IP_4_Turatam_old_Razdel_3.htm

Energy

https://kik-sssr.ru/IP_4_Turatam_old_Razdel_4.htm

Edited May 15, 2021 by kerbiloid

[sh1pman]

22 hours ago, tater said:

Found this Nick Stevens render (he does awesome work):

Admittedly, Proton with a crew ship does look ridiculous.

The designs after N1 follow the “moar boosters!” approach. If no boosters are needed, make fuel tanks look like boosters (Proton again).

[CatastrophicFailure]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Doesn't allow to embed the underlying pix

Man, I wish I could read Russian. 

Whats the point of the pin thru the ball joint tho? It seems it would stop it rotating on the only axis it needs to during separation?

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Whats the point of the pin thru the ball joint tho? It seems it would stop it rotating on the only axis it needs to during separation?

It fixes the lateral block in proper position in the  bracket on the central core.
The bracket has a hemispherical pit (on photo) and  a double cut for this acis (left-up to right-bottom on photo).

(Oh, it allowed to embed some of them.)

Spoiler